How states deal with sustainability politics The example

How states deal with sustainability politics. The example of Germany. Findings and interepretation. Seoul National University, Seoul/ROK, 27 th of November 2013 Norman Laws, Institute for Sustainability Governance

Agenda Nachhaltigkeitspolitikbarometer 1. Introduction 2. Why to look at the state‘s sustainability politics? 3. The SD-understanding used 4. Differences to other studies 5. The Study 6. Summary 7. Recommendations 8. Interpretation of Results: „mainstream“ 9. Interpretation of Results: „not so mainstream“ 1

1. Introduction Crises: Economy, Ecology and Social Sphere, e. g. - Share of people employed in low wage sectors: 2002 -2005 increase from 35. 5% to 36. 4% in Germany (BMAS/Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs 2008) - Variety of species within the tropics since 1970: 60% decrease (WWF 2010) - Increase of public debts, e. g. USA November 2010: 13. 8 trillion US-$ (United States Department of the Treasury 2010) Emission of greenhouse gases never as high as in 2012 20 years past Rio: no trend reversal Consequence: Interest in the topic of sustainability 15. 03. 2018 2

2. Why to look at the state‘s sustainability politics? Why to look at the state and its institutions? State not the only actor shaping Sustainable Development Companies: Decisions about production and investment Citizens: Consumption + lifestyle decisions (often induced by corporations that seek to increase their sales, for example: Packard 1966) Actors in the civil society: formation of political will + societal self-organization in the field of SD Multi- and transnational Organizations (EU, WTO…) Still: State with an important role to play. - e. g. creating incentives for specific behavior - setting regulatory frameworks - collectively binding decisions through democratic process 15. 03. 2018 3

2. Why to look at the state‘s sustainability politics? Study „Mehr Macht für eine Nachhaltige Entwicklung“ (Empowering a Sustainable Future) WWF Germany + Leuphana University Background: „Questions of Sustainability top priority on the Agenda of federal Government“ (Merkel 2012), „Guiding Principle Sustainable Development“ (Federal Government 2012) 2. SD as a cross-cutting and long-term issue: how is it integrated on the German federal level? Research Questions used in the study: 1. What status and significance does sustainability politics have in political and administrative processes at the German federal level? 3. What action-oriented relevance does SD in the executive and legislative branch have ? Rhetoric reflected in the daily practice of the actors? 15. 03. 2018 4

3. The used SD-understanding: What do we mean with SD? 18. century: Term coined by Hans Carl von Carlowitz: sustainable practice of forestry use + at the same time preservation of forests. Today: container term no conclusive definition Different interpretations possible e. g. prioritization of single dimensions of sustainability More established: Integrative understanding of SD: Taking into account the complexities + interdependencies of the three dimensions (dimensional component) todays needs will be satisfied in a way that does not compromise the capability of future generations to survive (temporal component) ( Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) Ecological, economical and social challenges have to be addressed in an integrative way = understanding used in this study 15. 03. 2018 5

4. Differences to other studies We are not looking at: Physical measures consumption of environmental media, use and overuse of nature in comparison to its capacity (e. g. Ecological Footprint or Carbon Footprint) Subjective measures for personal wellbeing or feeling of happiness (Global Happiness Index) Monetary or economical measures converting other measurements into monetary units (e. g. „The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity“/TEEB: attributing economical values to ecosystem services) Comparison between reform need with capacities for reform of states and societies (Sustainable Governance Indicators, Bertelsmann Foundation) 15. 03. 2018 6

5. The study Object of study: Sustainability politics on the federal level in Germany Three interconnected areas: 1. Institutionalization of Sustainability. How is the topic addressed in different institutions? And: in which ones? 2. Management of sustainability by politics and administration. How do they try to address sustainable development? 3. The political process. How is the topic sustainable development integrated in political procedures, how do the actors understand sustainability and is the topic prioritized? 15. 03. 2018 7

5. 1 Methodology To look at: actual implementation of SD as principle of action in politics and administration = to look at the day to day practice = statement of practitioners of highest importance Interviews in politics and administration (federal level) + supporting quantitative analysis of documents + cursory qualitative analysis of documents Interviews in all ministries + chancellery + all parties in the German parliament. Rank of interviewees in ministries: head of departments, head of subdivisions Rank in German Parliament: members of the German Parliament with ties to the Parliamentary Committee for SD or personal assistants Length of interviews: between 33 and 96 minutes + unofficial parts (ministries) Parliament: between 40 and 84 minutes Evaluation: Codings, done with the program Max. Qda (1706 ministries, 726/Parliament) 15. 03. 2018 8

5. 1 Methodology– Peer-Review Dr. Thomas Koenen, Federation of German Industry Vedrana Lemor, Econsense – Forum Sustainable Development of German Industry Bettina Locklair, German Conference of Bishops Jennifer Morgan, World Resources Institute, Director Climate and Energy Program Prof. Dr. Edda Müller, Transparency International Deutschland Dr. Werner Schneider, German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB) Dr. Imme Scholz, German Institute for Development Policy, Vice-Director Prof. Dr. h. c. Udo E. Simonis, German Environmental Foundation 15. 03. 2018 9

5. 2 Indicators Main Indicator Strategic Planning Sub-Indicator Long-term perspective SD as factor of power SD at places where political strategies are decided upon The Individual Factor SD and staff development Promotion of SD by leaders Policy-Steering SD-Reference in proposals SD as justification SD goals and their evaluation Conflicting goals SD goals Evaluation of proposals Conflicting goals Institutionalization Planning + Foundation of institutions designed to foster SD Conflicting goals within the own ministry/organization unit/party Management of holdings and investments + acquisitions Choice of Policy. Instruments SD evaluation of expenditures Cooperation with civil society Cooperation with non-state actors to foster SD Cooperation with other state actors Commitments of other resorts Coordination of state programs to achieve SD Integration into processes of planning Influence of EU and UN Taking into account subnational level Common assessment and consultation bodies with regard of SD Cooperation with other state actors Vertical policy integration At what places SD is dealt with? Prioritiation of SD Biodiversity Influence of third parties towards SD policy the 15. 03. 2018 10

5. 3. Example for an evaluation 1. Definition of an indicator: SD and staff development (gets the staff to know about the integrated concept of SD, especially interdependencies of SD-dimensions? Are there workshops dealing with it? ) 2. Possible classifications explained - „significant“: if the interviewees report that workshops and in-service education about the topic SD are offered that have the goal to expand the knowledge about the interlinkages of SD dimensions - „partly“: if sometimes workshops and in-service education about specific SD topics (e. g. in the area of ecology) are offered. - „insignificant“: if no workshops or in-service education about SD are offered 3. Evaluation/result 15. 03. 2018 11

5. 3. Example for an evaluation SD and development staff significant BMZ (Development Aid) partly significant insignificant AA, BMVg, BMI BMAS, BMU, BMELV, BMVBS, BMF, BMBF, BMG, BMWi, BMFJSF (Foreign Ministry, Defence, Interior) (Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Environment, Agriculture, Finance, Education and Research, Health, Economy, Family + Youth + Senior Citizen + Women) 15. 03. 2018 12

5. 4. Results Status of SD Policy SD as political-strategic topic: limited importance in executive + legislative: relevance is only partly attributed to institutions dealing with SD (Undersecretary Committee for SD, PBNE/Parliamentary Advisory Body/Subcommittee for SD) SD primarily as ecological topic : within most ministries. Highlighting cross-sectoral nature: e. g. BMU (M. of Environment) Commitment of ministries: especially attributed to Ministry of the Environment, much less: Ministry of the Economy Often: „Principle of the Departments“ (Ressortprinzip) preferred: every ministry would have just to deal with its own area Sustainability will result from that but what is actually needed: having a look at effects of one’s own policies on the other departments „Well, it is very good that every department is on its own and that we don't have to think at the same time about what is best for the environment …“ (BMF) 15. 03. 2018 13

5. 4. Results Institutionalization + Coordination of tasks Institutionalized linking of political areas + levels with the goal to foster SD: hardly observable No intensive coordination of day-to-day work between ministries with regard of SD Importance of PBNE/Parliamentary Advisory Body/Subcommittee for SD: Mostly limited from the viewpoint of the interviewed people. Public Awareness: almost not existing. Problem: not a full-fledged committee of the German Parliament; Complete examination possibilities for bills underdeveloped. Cooperation intensity between ministries and PBNE mainly limited Problem of the cross-cutting nature: SD policy practitioners at the Parliament: not always seen positive by colleagues within the Parliament fear: „interfering“ in other departments 15. 03. 2018 14

5. 4 Results Federal Level-Länder-Cooperation in SD questions: Necessity high – reality limited. Cooperation between parliaments between federal level and Länder-level. The Länder seen as important, but the cooperation in underdeveloped. „Sustainability and the integration of Länder and municipalities into the Sustainability strategy (…) it is a very difficult procedure. (…) There is progress, but also steps backwards. The heads of the offices of the prime ministers decided once or twice during the last time that they don't want to be integrated. There is room of improvement. ” (BMF) Leadership NL: Are there political leaders in this ministry for whom SD is a personal matter and very important? A: No. B: The topic is not prominent for that. (BMG) 15. 03. 2018 15

$5. 4. Results Qualification and Staff Development In ministries and fractions in the Parliament:$

5. 4. Results Qualification and Staff Development In ministries and fractions in the Parliament: SD almost not existing. Procurement (federal level) Sustainability Criteria: more integrated in decisions to purchase goods in ministries, but: possibilities of the huge demand power of the federal level for sustainable products still not used „The principle is not sustainable but affordable procurement and to buy as inexpensively as possible. “ (BMWi) 15. 03. 2018 16

5. 4. Results Prioritization and Sustainability Goals Prioritization of SD: often not implemented (especially in cases of conflicting goals ) 15. 03. 2018 17

6. Summary 1. Despite the rhetoric of federal government and parties: SD as political-strategic topic limited relevance in many areas of the legislative + executive branch 2. Topic not fully reflected in policy-formulation 3. Integrative SD as guiding principle: not always present in every practice of actors keyword: „Principle of the Departments“ (Ressortprinzip) 4. Different ministries/departments: different ideas about sustainability! difference in progressiveness 5. Not a top priority in the Parliament mostly Green Party + Left Party, then: Social Democrats, then: Christian Democrats, least: Liberals. 15. 03. 2018 18

7. Recommendations # 2: Build sustainability capacities – Train policy-makers # 3: Create a sustainable future together – Improve cooperation # 4: Check sustainability – Expand the evaluation of projects and investments # 5: Democratize sustainability – Strengthen the Parliamentary Advisory Council # 6: Implement sustainability – Forge links between policy-making and administrative levels # 7: Professionalize sustainability – Utilize management systems #10: Promote sustainability through demand – Federal government must take a pioneering role 15. 03. 2018 19

8. Interpretation of Results: „mainstream“ Perspectives from democratic theory, bureaucracy theory and control theory Sustainability as „res publica“, a public issue in a classical sense Sustainability as collective task = there is some movement into the direction of SD But: Problem + Reality of pluralistic societies: Individual interests not necessarily converted into a positive collective will (for SD). Pluralism (e. g. Ernst Fraenkel): Democracy secured, if a debate between different societal groups is followed by compromise = different fractions (inside + outside the parties and ministries) but still a lowest common denominator in Parliament + Government Specific groups can disturb the democratic balance Different opportunities (influence) one can argue: responsibility of the state to intervene! (e. g. James Madison/Federalist Papers) 15. 03. 2018 20

8. Interpretation of Results: „mainstream“ Hint at the need of the state‘s ability to act: WBGU-report „World in Transition“ or Genschel/Zangl 2007 (responsibility of the last resort of the state) state takes action in the SD field, but enough? Supplementing hierarchical, traditional steering mechanisms: Elements of market, networks, communities constitute governance structures. (Mayntz 2004) = different policy instruments used = cooperation with civil society in SD Room of maneuver of the state doesn‘t disappear, but: configuration is changing State has still the opportunity to influence and shape societal and political frameworks if the political will exists. 15. 03. 2018 21

9. Interpretation of Results: „not so mainstream“ Poulantzas (1978): State neither an object nor subject (actor on its own nor neutral arbiter) Not a passive or neutral tool, that could be absolutely manipulated by a class or fraction (state as object, organ of the “ruling classes” á la Marx/Engels) Not an absolutely autonomous structure with the justification of being a rational entity of the bourgeois or civil society Not a body that carries out public interests or with the goal of making just and moral decisions (state as subject) instead: compression of the balance of power between classes and class fractions materialized in the state in a specific form (societal relationship) From this point of view: “ruling classes“ : not one entity fractionated between each other + balance of power = inconsistent policies of the state = different fractions within different institutions Despite this fractioning of interests „prevalent baseline“ 15. 03. 2018 22

9. Interpretation of Results: „not so mainstream“ Gramsci: Rule within a capitalistic state consensus with the governed needed hegemony = governing less difficult + implementation of interests easier Means: - Processes of formation of will, - shared interest coalitions - negotiations or compromise (Demirovic 2007) = Governance interpreted in a different way? Looking at how “hegemony” and “consensus of the governed” is being produced fractions within the (capitalist) state = what apparatuses of the state = what kind of fraction? 15. 03. 2018 23

$9. Interpretation of Results: „not so mainstream“ 1. Different ministries/departments etc. different fractions within$

9. Interpretation of Results: „not so mainstream“ 1. Different ministries/departments etc. different fractions within a accumulation-oriented state 2. Despite fractions „prevalent baseline“ 3. SD as vehicle of producing consensus feeling comfortable („Green Growth“) + „golden cage “ this way: change of lifestyle must not be addressed = just transition into a society keeping the planetary boundaries: not completed 15. 03. 2018 24

10. Quotations from the Ministry of Economics NL: There are these sustainability dimensions. The social sphere. The ecological. The economical. . To what extent all three dimensions play a role here? A: Only the economical. (laughs) But this was to be expected. (BMWi) „The ministry of the economy calls on the voluntariness and insight of companies to implement the sustainability goals. It is one statement of the federal government: yes, these goals we find important and we want to take the economy with us on this road. But it is not like this that we want to force the economy to reach this goal. “ (BMWi) „If you are staying with 2% , then you don't think about 2020. “ (BMWi) „Sustainability as a guiding principle for the daily work? No!. “ (BMWi) „Sustainability… Nobody gives here a shit about it. “ (BMWi) 15. 03. 2018 25